Scarce moral high ground on nuclear weapons issue

Published: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 at 04:54 PM.

The impending spread of nuclear weapons to North Korea and Iran is a hot topic. Politicians and commentators strongly oppose the spread as a threat to U.S. leadership and world stability. Rarely however, do we get an in-depth analysis addressing the morality of nuclear arms.

Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa’s words are a refreshing exception (Guardian UK, March 2013).

“No nation should own nuclear arms — not Iran, not North Korea, and not their critics who take the moral high ground.

“We cannot intimidate others into behaving well when we ourselves are misbehaving. Yet that is precisely what nations armed with nuclear weapons hope to do by censuring North Korea for its nuclear tests and sounding alarm bells over Iran’s pursuit of enriched uranium. According to their logic, a select few nations can ensure the security of all by having the capacity to destroy all. Until we overcome this double-standard; until we accept that nuclear weapons are abhorrent and a grave danger no matter who possesses them … we are unlikely to make meaningful progress in halting the spread of these monstrous devices, let alone banishing them from national arsenals.

“Why, for instance, would a proliferating state pay heed to the exhortations of the U.S. and Russia, which retain thousands of their nuclear warheads on high alert? How can Britain and France and China expect a hearing on non-proliferation while they squander billions on modernizing their nuclear forces? What standing has Israel to urge Iran not to acquire the bomb when it harbors its own atomic arsenal?”

The writer of Matthew’s Gospel had it right when he said, “In everything do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (Mt. 7:12) The “Golden Rule” is as true for nuclear weapons as it is for relationships with a neighbor.

The impending spread of nuclear weapons to North Korea and Iran is a hot topic. Politicians and commentators strongly oppose the spread as a threat to U.S. leadership and world stability. Rarely however, do we get an in-depth analysis addressing the morality of nuclear arms.

Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa’s words are a refreshing exception (Guardian UK, March 2013).

“No nation should own nuclear arms — not Iran, not North Korea, and not their critics who take the moral high ground.

“We cannot intimidate others into behaving well when we ourselves are misbehaving. Yet that is precisely what nations armed with nuclear weapons hope to do by censuring North Korea for its nuclear tests and sounding alarm bells over Iran’s pursuit of enriched uranium. According to their logic, a select few nations can ensure the security of all by having the capacity to destroy all. Until we overcome this double-standard; until we accept that nuclear weapons are abhorrent and a grave danger no matter who possesses them … we are unlikely to make meaningful progress in halting the spread of these monstrous devices, let alone banishing them from national arsenals.

“Why, for instance, would a proliferating state pay heed to the exhortations of the U.S. and Russia, which retain thousands of their nuclear warheads on high alert? How can Britain and France and China expect a hearing on non-proliferation while they squander billions on modernizing their nuclear forces? What standing has Israel to urge Iran not to acquire the bomb when it harbors its own atomic arsenal?”

The writer of Matthew’s Gospel had it right when he said, “In everything do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (Mt. 7:12) The “Golden Rule” is as true for nuclear weapons as it is for relationships with a neighbor.